Rob Sayre wrote:
> On 6/9/09 10:52 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Rob Sayre wrote:
>>> On 6/9/09 6:02 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>>> Why reference the Mozilla API? I'm assuming because it drives the
>>>> Mozilla editor, as well as the browser, which puts the API into the
>>>> conforming author territory, while still being part of a user agent.
>>>
>>> That's a good point. Just more fallout from the ridiculous author
>>> conformance requirements. Pseudo-intellectual ideas about "semantic
>>> markup" just don't buy you that much as requirements.
>>>
>>> Like anything else, some HTML files are better crafted than others,
>>> but conformance requirements should address showstoppers.
>>
>> Are there MUSTs in the current spec that the Mozilla foundation is
>> unlikely to ever implement? Can they be identified specifically?
>
> Yes, most of the authoring requirements are meaningless or at least
> pointless. I hope you can forgive me for failing to produce an
> exhaustive list, but the subject of this message is a good example.
Just to be clear: the subject of this messages is an example of
something that absolutely prevent one or more products that aspires to
be HTML 5 conformant from ever being so? Do I have this correct? Do
others at Mozilla agree? Do others at other browser vendors agree? Do
other non-browser tool vendors agree?
In the case of planet Venus, I can certainly implement an XSLT
stylesheet that transforms fonts into the style element equivalent, so
this is not a showstopper for me.
- Sam Ruby